28 96. The Court observes that the “criminal”, “subversive” or “terrorist” threat invoked by the State as a justification for the actions carried out can certainly constitute a legitimate reason to use state security forces in specific cases. However, States’ fight against criminality must take place within the limits and in accordance with the proceedings which allow for the preservation of both public security and the full respect of human rights of the individuals under their jurisdiction82. The country’s circumstances, no matter how difficult they are, do not release State Parties to the American Convention of their obligations established therein; these obligations remains especially in cases such as the one presently before the Court83. It is necessary to stress that no matter the circumstances in any State, there exist an absolute prohibition of torture, forced disappearances of individuals and summary and extrajudicial executions; and that such prohibition constitutes a mandatory rule of International Law not subject to derogation84. 97. The State admitted that the state of emergency “could have shown some excess in the planning of the objective which was pursued”, but it alleged that “it does not in itself demonstrate in any way an extrajudicial execution attributable to the State, which would allow the Court [… to] declare the violation of Article 4 of the Convention”. 98. The Commission and the representatives alleged, on the grounds of the testimonies given by some family members of the deceased persons and by some unidentified neighbors living in that zone, that the militaries extrajudicially executed the three alleged victims upon entering their homes. Moreover, the Commission alleged that “[t]he State has not produced any evidence that suggests that [any of the alleged victims would have been] bearing arms at the time of his death, and that therefore the state agents [would have] acted in self-defense”, nor has it produced any evidence demonstrating that one of its agents would have been wounded by a firearm by one of the alleged victims. The Commission found that the fact that each of the alleged victims was killed in his home would show that their possible resistance to the agents of the government forces was individual. The representatives claimed that the alleged victims were under custody of state agents at the time of their death and that there are enough evidentiary elements - such as press reports, testimonies of family members and reports from human rights organizations – to conclude that the victims have been executed extrajudicially. Furthermore, they alleged that the State did not submit any evidence demonstrating that agents of the security force who participated in the events would have attempted to use less lethal means of intervention. 99. In its answer to the application, the State asserted that the death of the three alleged victims “irrefutably [… took place in the context of] self-defence” on behalf of state agents. The State alleged that in this case “sophisticated armaments [and] material for drug dealing were seized in the house of the deceased, which is the reason why they were about to be arrested for the corresponding investigations[;] however in contempt of the authority [and] in self-defence they ended up injured to death”. Regarding Mr. Zambrano Vélez, the State alleged that he died in an armed confrontation with the public forces and that “although [the death] was committed by an agent of [the public forces,] it does not constitute a criminal offence [… and therefore] international responsibility cannot be attributed to the State for an act committed by a [state] agent in selfCf. Case of Castillo Petruzi et al., supra note 40, para. 89. See also Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 44, para. 55, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 42, para. 63. 82 83 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 207. See also Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 75, para. 89, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 61, para. 146. 84 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 132; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 404; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 157; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 75, para. 84; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 14, para. 99; Case of Caesar, supra note #43, para. 59, and Case of Barrios Altos. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41.